Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive
Makes sense, until one realizes that the definition of "wealthy" will ALWAYS be made by someone who is less wealthy than the proposed level determining it.
Rather than wealth rearrangement, why not try something more positive, such as favorable business climates for those entrepreneurs just starting out? Far too many states are business-hostile: my state of origin, Minnesota, was to a fault. Business were fleeing like deranged lemmings to states such as South Dakota that had a climate that encouraged entrepreneurship rather than squelching it.
|
That's still wealth rearrangement. When you favor entrepreneurs just starting out, you DISfavor the CEOs of the mega-corporations. Every $10 you give to a startup is $10 less you give to a wealthy mega-corp. If you give $10 to the mega-corp, then that $10 you give to the startup won't help, because he's still the same amount of mega-bucks behind and still has the same amount to catch up on.
Wealth rearrangement is fine, if it's done in a way that allows the mega-wealthy to continue being mega-wealthy, but gives the startups a better opportunity to get into profit-making.
As for "what constitutes wealth" - I'd say Warren Buffett has a pretty good idea of the definition. If one of the wealthiest people in the WORLD says "what I make is too much" you can probably believe him.